Analysis Estimating the Potential Cost Impact of Utilizing Flash Glucose Monitoring with Optional Alarms in Swedish Adults with Diabetes with Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycaemia, Using Intensive Insulin

Introduction The objective of this analysis was to estimate the costs associated with using flash glucose monitoring with optional alarms as a replacement for either traditional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or routine self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in adults with diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) who use intensified insulin therapy, from a Swedish payer perspective, applying assumptions to simulate hypothetical scenarios. Methods A simple two-state cohort Markov model was used to calculate the cost per patient treated over a 3-year period, capturing the risk of severe hypoglycaemic events requiring medical assistance and non-adherence using quarterly Markov cycles. The costs considered were those for glucose monitoring and resource use to treat severe hypoglycaemic events. Cost inputs were sourced from Swedish price lists, manufacturer data and resource use reported in the control arm of the HypoDE study. Targeted literature searches were run in PubMed to source the clinical inputs. Uncertainty in the model was considered through one-way sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. Results Over 3 years, flash monitoring with optional alarms resulted in potential cost-savings of Swedish krona (SEK) 7708 and SEK 69,908 per patient when compared to routine SMBG or CGM respectively. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were largely supportive of this conclusion with respect to SMBG, and large cost-savings were consistent across all sensitivity and scenario analyses with respect to CGM. Conclusion Utilizing flash monitoring with optional alarms is potentially a cost-saving treatment strategy compared to routine SMBG or traditional CGM in adults with diabetes using intensive insulin and IAH from a Swedish payer perspective. Future studies in the IAH population will help to assess more precisely the relative cost impact of flash glucose monitoring with optional alarms compared with SMBG and traditional CGM.